Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: How do you know if your sound is right? (Read 18849 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #25 –
HiFi used to be defined as a standard of quality of sound reproduction. See the 'ancient' German DIN norm 45500.
It used to specify a required frequency range and max deviation from flat, min power, max non-linear distortions, max crosstalk ... and so on and on. That's just for amplifiers, but the norm also contained requirements for microphones, loudspeakers, headphones ...

Today, even cheap electronics usually vastly surpasses these requirements. The weak link today are loudspeakers and room acoustics.
You've already been pointed to resources on loudspeakers and room acoustics.

These efforts at steering hifi in the right direction have not died down. For example see SSF_01_1_2002_v2.PDF (German).
"I hear it when I see it."

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #26 –
What is the poor mix- or mastering engineer supposed to mix for, if the characteristics of the playback system can't be assumed to be linear? What would be a "typical" listening situation if everybody's setup produces variations in frequency response that are all over the place?

Ok, you could target the most popular devices, such as the mobile phones, or perhaps a typical ghetto blaster. And then expect the upmarket listeners with their expensive home systems to mimick those characteristics. Would that be the solution? (wink)

Just think what you would be doing if you were the guy on the other side: You mix and equalize the title. What is your reference to work towards?

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: pelmazo on
Ok, you could target the most popular devices, such as the internal speakers of (or typical earbuds that come with) mobile phones, or perhaps a typical ghetto blaster.

Fixed that for you. I hope you didn't intend to cater to the placebophile snobbery against using mobile phones for digital-to-analog conversion.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #28 –
How do you know if your sound is right? Easy, when it is completely indistinguishable from the original source. [Not to claim that's easy for us consumers to establish, largely because we almost never have access to the original sound source.]

Although there have been several "live vs recorded" tests even going back to the days of Edison which were gimmicked/staged, promotionally driven, often not truly blind, and with all sorts of other problems, the basic premise itself is perfectly sound and from my perspective might be considered the grandfather of the ABX test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-IvTF0xUxM


Sean Olive seems to disagree, and is quick to point out all sorts of known problems with previous attempts, but I find his arguments against the basic premise of LvR testing rather unconvincing. Does it work in any scenario one might want? No, but in some it can.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Quote
There are vast shortcomings due to speakers and rooms that headphones inherently overcome. One problem is that recordings are usually designed to be listened to with speakers in rooms, and those speakers and rooms vary all over the map.


If that's the case, then no need for speakers. Headphones are the gold standard right?



There  can be comfort issues, personal preference, and the custom of having more than one person listening to the same speakers at the same time.

Not every audio production tech can mix and master for speaker listening while listening to headphones.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #30 –
Quote from: pelmazo on
What is the poor mix- or mastering engineer supposed to mix for, if the characteristics of the playback system can't be assumed to be linear?


The mixdown and the distribution forms of a recording for wide distribution are typically performed in accordance with the preferences of the producer.

Quote
What would be a "typical" listening situation if everybody's setup produces variations in frequency response that are all over the place?


The mixdown only has to sound good on the system that producer (and by implication the mixing technican uses to audition it.

The mastering technician and the producer usually audition the finished form of the recording on a small number of different systems deemed by the producer to typical of the various sectors of the market for the recording.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: xnor on
HiFi used to be defined as a standard of quality of sound reproduction. See the 'ancient' German DIN norm 45500.
It used to specify a required frequency range and max deviation from flat, min power, max non-linear distortions, max crosstalk ... and so on and on. That's just for amplifiers, but the norm also contained requirements for microphones, loudspeakers, headphones ...

Today, even cheap electronics usually vastly surpasses these requirements. The weak link today are loudspeakers and room acoustics.
You've already been pointed to resources on loudspeakers and room acoustics.

These efforts at steering hifi in the right direction have not died down. For example see SSF_01_1_2002_v2.PDF (German).


The PDF translates to fairly readable English text using Google Translate, but the graphics seem to go missing.

The owners of this document should understand that hiding this potential gem under a stone runs counter to the purpose of a standard which is to get accepted and followed.

Is there something in the ITU library that is similar?

On first glance the standard seems like an evolutionary form of earlier such standards and it could be pretty good.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #32 –
Quote
So what is the point of HIFI, or is there no point to HIFI? Is it really about trying as best as possible to recreate the sound of a live perfrormance (since we established that reference is probably unobtainuim) or is it really what sounds best to you? If it's the latter then anyone can just claim for their 'sound' to the hifi.
I'd say high fidelity is still the ideal.    And, I'll accept the dictionary definitions of "high" and "fidelity".

Then it becomes a question of what's high-enough fidelity.  That's up to the individual.  Some people may chase this goal endlessly...

I'd say with enough budget you can achieve perfect "studio fidelity", if that's your goal.  Perfect "live fidelity" is more elusive.  You won't get the exact  sound as the original  studio but you should be able as close to the original as listening in any other good-pro studio.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: xnor on
Rich B, why do you bring this up again? We already discussed 'flatness' of different types of responses here.

Several people have tried explaining this to you, and also pointed you to further scientific resources.


2bdecided hit on the answer awhile ago, I think

http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php...st&p=879509


A few months back I asked that person if he was the same person who posted under a different Nym on AVS and was deflected. I'd say that is about as close to an admission as we are going to get.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #35 –
I think he'd ask questions differently if he was genuinely interested in their answers. But maybe he really is torn between the rational and irrational. Guess we'll never know, so he'll always get these mixed answers.
"I hear it when I see it."

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #36 –
Quote from: Rich B on
So what is the point of HIFI, or is there no point to HIFI? Is it really about trying as best as possible to recreate the sound of a live perfrormance (since we established that reference is probably unobtainuim) or is it really what sounds best to you? If it's the latter then anyone can just claim for their 'sound' to the hifi.


In the context of a home playback system, "None Of The Above".

It's only about seeking a standard of playback which adds and subtracts nothing from the recording. Whether it sounds lifelike or not is beyond our control: That's up to the recording engineer.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #37 –
Quote
Is it really about trying as best as possible to recreate the sound of a live perfrormance


I hope not.

Quote from: mzil on
How do you know if your sound is right? Easy, when it is completely indistinguishable from the original source.


What original source? There is no original source for a band with electric instruments in a studio, or electronic music, since we can only access that sound filtered though speakers and other hardware— which is the very thing we're discussing.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #38 –
Quote from: dhromed on
Quote
Is it really about trying as best as possible to recreate the sound of a live perfrormance


I hope not.

Quote from: mzil on
How do you know if your sound is right? Easy, when it is completely indistinguishable from the original source.


What original source? There is no original source for a band with electric instruments in a studio, or electronic music, since we can only access that sound filtered though speakers and other hardware— which is the very thing we're discussing.



The original source for an electronic instrument is usually defined by the musician playing the instrument - it is the sound of him playing his preferred electronic instrument through his preferred speakers in his preferred performance space.

The original source for a musical work that was created in the studio is what the mixdown technician heard in his monitoring system as he mixed it down into what he thought was the final mix. This may differ from what the mastering engineer created.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #39 –
Quote from: xnor on
Rich B, why do you bring this up again? We already discussed 'flatness' of different types of responses here.

Several people have tried explaining this to you, and also pointed you to further scientific resources.


But Rich never reads or reads and understands what anyone posts on here.

I honestly don't understand why he is continually allowed to post repeated questions on the same subject. Most people would be told not to.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #40 –
Quote from: probedb on
Quote from: xnor on
Rich B, why do you bring this up again? We already discussed 'flatness' of different types of responses here.

Several people have tried explaining this to you, and also pointed you to further scientific resources.


But Rich never reads or reads and understands what anyone posts on here.

I honestly don't understand why he is continually allowed to post repeated questions on the same subject. Most people would be told not to.


Because the answers are so conflicting.

One moment it is said that flat is NOT desirable in a room. Another moment it is said that flat in a room NOT being desirable is an audiophile myth. Then we have further ambiguity regarding 'flatness'. So based on the many responses here and elsewhere, it seems like 'whatever works' is the answer. The points on 'flatness' just remain vague for vagueness sake.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #41 –
Quote from: Rich B on
The points on 'flatness' just remain vague for vagueness sake.

You don't (want to) understand, and don't (want to) read the resources you have been pointed to, so what point is there even talking to you? Flatness has perfectly good definitions, which differ in different contexts. I'm sorry if you cannot grasp that.
"I hear it when I see it."

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #42 –
Quote from: xnor on
Quote from: Rich B on
The points on 'flatness' just remain vague for vagueness sake.

You don't (want to) understand, and don't (want to) read the resources you have been pointed to, so what point is there even talking to you? Flatness has perfectly good definitions, which differ in different contexts. I'm sorry if you cannot grasp that.


I do want to understand but it's confusing when there are 10 different explanations and depending on the circumstances, I get differing answers. Fact is, you are just plain unclear on these points. It's not about misunderstanding, it's about clearly articulating the point so that it's easily understood.

You have not done this.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #43 –
Quote
A speaker with flat on-axis response?

A speaker with flat power response?

A speaker in a large room?

A speaker in a small room?

A speaker in a dead room?

A speaker in a reverberent room?

If you measure any of the above, in general one kind of flat precludes all or most of the others. Many of them coexist at different locations in the same room.

You can't concurrently satisfy all of the necessary requirements.

OTOH the following is as good of a definition of the kind of flat you want with headphones:

Headphones with flat response including correction for the known sensitivity variations in the human ear that differ from free-field listening.

That is just one thing.

I was speaking figuratively - flat response in accordance with some reasonable goal.


What is a flat power response and how does that differ from a flat response in a small or big room? In a reverberant or dead room?

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #44 –
IMO(!) the on-axis anechoic measured response of a good speaker is flat.

The measured power wrt frequency at the listening seat of a real room won't be, and will sound wrong if you correct it such that it is.

The difference, due to the way bass vs treble propagate from real speakers in a real room, is not properly defined. In that respect, you are right.

However, it's one of those situations where common industry practice (both mixing and listening in rooms using speakers with cones whose size is related to the frequencies they reproduce) has created a kind of defacto standard.

If your room or speakers (or the interaction between the two) is kind of non-standard, you'll hear the problem, and fix it. Either with speaker placement, bass tilt controls on the speakers, different speakers, or EQ.

When you introduce a completely new paradigm (e.g. flat panel speakers, listening outdoors or in an anechoic chamber) you absolutely need to compensate for that new paradigm to make it match the previous experience. A very similar thing happened when we switched from using CRTs to LCDs to watch TV. The response of the traditional CRT created a defacto response curve which wasn't standardised until very recently, despite people happily watching TV since the 1930s.

Cheers,
David.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #45 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Quote
A speaker with flat on-axis response?

A speaker with flat power response?

A speaker in a large room?

A speaker in a small room?

A speaker in a dead room?

A speaker in a reverberent room?

If you measure any of the above, in general one kind of flat precludes all or most of the others. Many of them coexist at different locations in the same room.

You can't concurrently satisfy all of the necessary requirements.

OTOH the following is as good of a definition of the kind of flat you want with headphones:

Headphones with flat response including correction for the known sensitivity variations in the human ear that differ from free-field listening.

That is just one thing.

I was speaking figuratively - flat response in accordance with some reasonable goal.


What is a flat power response and how does that differ from a flat response in a small or big room? In a reverberant or dead room?


Power response is the summation of all of the acoustic energy that is generated by the loudspeaker from the front, back, sides, top and bottom.

This can be and often is vastly different from on-axis response which is only the acoustic energy that comes out of the front of the speaker head-on.

It has been at least strongly suspected for at least 30 years that on-axis response needs to be pretty much acoustically flat for the vast majority of listeners to be maximally happy.  I first heard about this from a guy named Edward Long, but I don't know the exact genesis of this kind of thinking.

Similarly, it has been found to be OK, and maybe even desirable for the power response of the speakers to conform to some kind of a non-flat curve.

Every room has a region in which what we hear is most strongly influenced by on-axis response. An example of this is listening in the near field with toed-in speakers.

As I understand your listening room Rich, what you hear at your LP is probably most strongly influenced by your speaker's on-axis response. If you are not equalizing them in some way, its probably pretty close to being flat.

Most rooms have a region in which what we hear is most strongly influenced by power response combined with room response. An example of this is listening at some distance and off axis to the speakers.  This region is called The Reverberant Field.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #46 –
Okay. So you have power response which is energy from all sides including front, and that you think should not be flat.

On-axis response, you say, should be flat for good sound. But the off-axis response should not be flat, because the off-axis + on-axis represents the power response?  If the room is dead, or reverberant, I'm not sure how that would affect how desirable a flat response would be on axis. Seems like a gamble.

I don't EQ except for the very low bass under 80 Hz. I don't have enough bass traps (broad band absorbers, technically speaking) to do anything useful below 100 Hz.

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #47 –
Are there any universally accepted studies that suggest a flat on-axis response in a room is desirable for good sound quality? Or a flat on-axis response is desirable assuming the room is reverberant? Or dead? Or ..?

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #48 –
Quote
It has been at least strongly suspected for at least 30 years that on-axis response needs to be pretty much acoustically flat for the vast majority of listeners to be maximally happy.


In what type of room? Acoustically dead or reverberant?

How do you know if your sound is right?

Reply #49 –
Quote from: Rich B on
Quote
It has been at least strongly suspected for at least 30 years that on-axis response needs to be pretty much acoustically flat for the vast majority of listeners to be maximally happy.


In what type of room? Acoustically dead or reverberant?



Most rooms are both acoustically dead and reverberant from the standpoint of sounds reproduced by the speakers depending on how far you are from the speakers.

The more acoustically dead part of the room is called the Direct Field. The more reverberent part of the room is called the Reverberant field. 

Both fields generally coexist in the same room. In a multichannel system every speaker can have different regions of the room that are Direct and Reverberant.

So, what type of room, Acoustically dead or reverberant, is the wrong criteria. Rooms generally aren't consistent across the whole room. A tiny listening room with a fair amount of sound absorbing material such as I perceive yours to be may be more consistent than most.

As I already said, in the direct field on-axis speaker sound generally dominates. In the reverberent field, the power response can be far more significant.